Final thoughts on current events.

we talked a lot in class about the polygamous sect in southwest texas. our discussion focused on what would happen to the children involved. some people thought they should stay with their mothers, while others said they should be taken away from their mothers. after reading this story today i feel strongly that they should be taken away from their mothers. there were 31 out of 53 TEENAGE girls (14-17) who were either pregnant or had children of their own. that's just disgusting. and i seriously doubt it would be in their best interests to be put back into their mothers' care because obviously that didn't go so well the first time around. how can mothers let their own children be forced upon/ raped/ have sexual relations with men triple their age? here's the link if you want to read it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

and second, i'm sure this is old news by now, but i mistakenly thought that someone had already posted it. here, a yale art major documented herself having different self-induced miscarriages over a nine month period. the exhibit was supposed to include video recordings of each instance, but has since been banned/ postponed indefinitely. her goal was to spark conversation and well, it worked. now every rational human being thinks this chick is a crackpot that needs to be kicked out of yale. seriously, this is up there with the goldfish in blenders exhibit & the dying dog exhibit--all in the name of "art." i mean i'm all for art & abstract, but this crosses the line. i think those before us worked so hard for the roe v. wade decision & the whole premise of this "art exhibit" is just disrespectful and non-appreciative of what that decision meant as far as its impact on women's rights. not to mention it adds fuel to the pro-lifers' fire. this girl needs to get smacked in the head.

http://perezhilton.com/2008-04-17-abortions-art

You've Come A Long Way, Baby

As I prepare for the final for this class, I am struck again on how often it has seemed like htere was no real answer to problems and situations presented by the various topics we covered. Over and over again, it seems, we would hit upon a problem and come to the conclusion that the only way to truly solve the problem would be to end discrimination against women. So much of the time it seems like time and education are the only real solutions - hopefully we are rasing our children with different attitudes than the ones we grew up with and hopefully our children will act differently as a result. I wonder, however, if this is really the case. While it does sometimes seem like children are growing up around fewer instances of out-and-out prejudice/discrimination, is this indeed enough? I think that belief systems are exceddingly slow to evolve and change - and this is depressing. Before this class I think I would have agreed with the statement "You've come a long way, baby" but now I am not so sure that I would. I think we may have come a long way but we still have a long way to go.

Television Observations

so i've been needing to post this for FOREVER, but hadn't gotten around to it until now. obviously being in this class has made me more aware of women's issues in many areas of my life. well lately, tivo has been my main activity and highlight of my day. i am posting to reflect on the issues that constantly irritate me on television. my first complaint is directed toward "the moment of truth," in which a contestant is asked personal questions about his or her job/ family/ relationships/ etc. the contestants must answer truthfully or they will lose prize money. (sorry for those who watch the show - that was a VERY brief synopsis) anyway, aside from people ruining their lives by answering the most intense personal questions EVER (e.g. have you ever slept with someone other than your spouse during your marriage?, etc.), i noticed a trend of blatant sexism in the beginning in terms of questions posed to men & women. while men were asked harmless ethical about their jobs or life accomplishments, the women were asked a series of sexual questions (e.g. have you ever engaged in a sex act to get a promotion?, have you ever had sexual relations with a customer for money?, etc.) so this was the trend over the first few episodes when i had initially planned to post my disdain for the show. BUT the show has changed it ways and now doesn't only ask the women personal sexual questions, but finally the men as well. good to see formal equality at work.
my second complaint revolves around the drama "er." i feel that i can be more of a critic about this show as i have watched 5 or 6 seasons in the last few months on tnt. i give full props for er casting one of the most diverse set of characters in a tv show (men, women, gay, straight, single parent, happily married, british, croatian, etc. etc.) but the real problem is the rampant sexism & sexual harassment that occurs in the "county general" workplace. in my opinion, er portrays strong female characters, whether doctors or nurses, which seemingly provide good role models for young children; however, males on the er staff routinely make comments belittling & demeaning the females on the show. i admire the women targeted by these comments for their ability to brush them off, but i hate the idea that the show portrays this behavior as ok in a professional setting. instead, the writers could throw in a disciplinary hearing or sensitivity training or something along those lines. other professional dramas (hello law & order) show the ability of men & women professionals to interact with each other in respectful & efficient ways. that's all i can think of for now.

Shrek the 3rd

I watched Shrek the 3rd last night with a friend and her children and I was struck by the ambiguity of its overall message. On first glance, it's got a feminist message - namely that Princess Fiona and her friends can rescue themselves from the clutches of Prince Charming...who needs a man (or an ogre for that matter)? The scenes where Fiona and her mother and the various princesses made their way out of the castle overcoming many obstacles should not be discounted - the "girl power" theme was strong and believable. Unfortunately, the filmmakers chose to muddy the waters by having Shrek be the ultimate hero in the end - I guess people are expecting that when they pay for a movie called "Shrek the 3rd." I just wonder if the girl power message was completely negated by having Fiona and her friends fail to save the day in the end - needing Shrek to do it for them. Worse yet, does it send a message that girl power can only get you so far - ultimately a man is going to be needed to solve any MAJOR problem? While I applaud the filmmakers' efforts to celebrate the strength of women I was disturbed by their overall lack of commitment to the message.

The Laugh Track

Since our discussion on sexual harassment in the work place I have noticed several sitcoms use sexual harassment in comedic situations. So, I think the question becomes is this helpful or hurtful in promoting the sexual harassment problem in America.

Some might say that it is helpful because it raises awareness to the problem.  I would argue that it is actually much more hurtful than helpful to raising awareness of sexual harassment issues.  Using sexual harassment as a piece of comedy diminishes the severity of the problem.  While in the end the show might condemn the act itself (though not always), the portrayal of sexual harassment as something to be laughed at in any situation can lead to watchers believe that real life sexual harassment is also something to be laughed at.  I leave you with this ultimate example.

"You are emotional because you are a woman"

Unfortunately, the title of this blog post is a quote that was directed at me this weekend. I had my final trial for my Trial Advocacy class on Saturday and the gentleman who played our judge said this to me. After our trial was over and I had lost, sending my battered woman of a client to jail for attempted manslaughter and aggravated assault, the Judge asked us all to stay so he could give us our critiques. The whole trial had been a little rough on me, mostly because I did not get much sleep the night before and all of the built up stress and emotion of having a newborn seemed to be busting out of me in the middle of court. So when it got time to tell the judge what we thought we could have improved on I burst into tears. Some because I really thought I should have prepared more and done a better job but some just because I lost. Through the tears I told the judge that I was just sleep deprived and that I was sorry for crying. My co-counsel and opposing counsel told him that I just had a baby. That is when he said "I hope you don't take offense to this but....you are just being emotional because you are a woman." At the time I guess I thought he was referring to the almost endless hormonal roller coaster that I have been on post pregnancy (and a little during pregnancy if you ask my husband's opinion). I did not take offense to what he said until later when I realized he never said it was because I had a newborn just that I was a woman.
I guess I better get used to being talked to like that since I will soon be entering the male-dominated field of law. Hopefully, things will change in the future and emotions won't be blamed on sex.

Another Women in Sports First

I came across a headline today that I found interesting. It seems that Danica Patrick has become the first woman to win an IndyCar race.

http://sports.yahoo.com/irl/news?slug=ap-irl-indyjapan300&prov=ap&type=lgns

After reading the article, I was encouraged but somewhat surprised that no one mentioned the controversy that has surrounded her in the last couple of years. Many of the men in the IndyCar circuit have complained repeatedly that she had an unfair weight advantage in the races. Apparently, the regulation of the cars they drive is rather rigid when it comes to weight, but the weight of the car was taken without a passenger. The male drivers have complained that because Danica is a woman and lighter, that the weight of her car as she is driving is lower than the weight of the cars with male drivers, and as a result, she can go faster. Or something. I don't follow racing and don't really understand the rules and regulations, but I have friends who do and brought this to my attention.

It was nice to read the supportive comments by the other drivers and have no one take away from her win by mentioning the weight issue.

So as another barrier falls and another first occurs, congratulations to Danica Patrick. Maybe sports writers and commentators will begin to give her the respect she deserves.

Edit 4/21/08 : Or not... Today's Yahoo Sports opinion column. Putting Patrick’s Victory in Perspective

What Women Want

I realize this post is a little late in the discussion, but I have not been able to stop thinking of the pornography discussion in relation to what women want. I was in Barnes and Noble with a friend the other day, and we decided to browse through the romance novel section to see if it reflected some of the things we talked about in class. Out of about 30 books we looked at, only one of those had the woman character on an equal plane as the male character of the story. In every other book , a woman was taken captive by a man. She either ended up falling in love with her captor or falling in love with the man who rescued her from her captor. All of the loves scenes (save one) had an element of force or fighting involved. It made me wonder, after the extensive discussion we had in class, what women really want.
Our discussion centered around women desiring to be equal with men in romance. But based on Hollywood, best-selling romance novels and adult movies, that does not seem to be true. This leaves me wondering what women really want? Do we want a hero to ride in on a white horse and save us? Or, do we want to steal that white horse and save ourselves? I must admit I am really confused. I assume that most men are as well!
I think many women want both things. Most of the time I take pride in doing things myself. Sometimes I just want a hero to do it for me! Two weeks ago I was in a car accident. After it happened the only thing I wanted to do was call my husband and have him wrap me up in his arms and save the day. This surprised me. Up until that point I had taken great pride in the fact that I could handle any and every situation on my own since he has been in Iraq. After the accident I realized I have a split personality. And to be honest, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
I guess the difficulty in this situation is representing both sides of desire without losing our independence or dependence in the process. Good luck, ladies.

Husband/Wife Bill of Rights

So I was procrastinating tonight...it's finals time for sure....and on my hotmail homepage was a headline for the Husband and Wife Bill of Rights. Because I am now a die-hard feminist, I had to check it out. Though it's really not worth it, if you want to see the complete thing it is at:
http://men.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=6742052

But there was one entry I found particularly worthy of attention:

From the wife's Bill of Rights:

"We have the right to flirt.Not the kind that makes you jealous, but the healthy practice of connecting with another person on a non-sexual level. Light banter is fun, quick-witted, and encouraging to our self esteem. It might even remind you of why you feel in love with us. And if it gets us a smoking deal on that new furnace or a free stay for the family at a million-dollar ski chalet, so much the better."

Wow. Of all the rights married women could declare, certainly she would choose the RIGHT to prostitute herself for a new furnace. Fascinating.

life does not per se = morality

I see the biggest problem in State regulation of morality as the question of whose morality is being enforced. A system of morals is one that weighs many alternative paths and chooses one at the cost of others. By regulating morality, a State locks-in the value of each path and therefore eliminates the process of give and take which is a necessity of any moral system. It mandates which path to take at various forks in the road without regard to the system of paths as a whole or the reality that for some people, the forced path takes them too far away from their original course to ever return.

The regulation of abortion provides an example. In Roe v. Wade, the State asserted that as long as at least potential life is involved, it may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman. In its opinion the Court uses a balancing test that says the woman’s right to privacy outweighs the rights of a potential life, but only in the first trimester. The Court can make this decision because it is looking only at the generic concepts of “woman” and “potential life.”

I argue that this decision requires a much more individualized approach because it is actually deeming the future of a human being with a set of present circumstances and another human being with a set of future circumstances. Sending a pregnant woman down the chosen path of childbirth ignores the subsequent questions of morality regarding the potential human being that is the ultimate result of the State’s firm stance, yet the Court’s analysis ends in the delivery room. Is it moral to bring an unwanted child into the world? Is it honoring human life to insist on it, even when it exists in poverty? In abuse? In addiction? In starvation? In insisting on the single path that promotes potential life, the State is actually acting in total disregard for the human life that comes as a consequence.

The rhetoric used by the Court attempts to force the audience into viewing the fetus as a child, but stops short of considering the resulting child for more than a few hours after his/her birth. It is likely that the same people appalled at the abortion procedure would likewise be appalled at images of the 800,000 children in foster care and the 899,121 children in Texas alone who qualify for the public school’s severe need breakfast supplement program. The Court’s opinion is terminally flawed because it allows the state to stake claim to a fetus growing within a woman without requiring the state to prove a parallel interest in the child that results. Until the Court brings post-birth responsibilities into their analysis, the resulting policies will fail to give any dignity to the human life they’ve so vehemently advocated for, thus making the proposed state interest wholly irrational.

The State cannot regulate morality because such statutory regulation does not allow for the give and take that is necessary in reality. While the concept of “potential life” seems like one we should protect in general, the actual human life at stake in such decisions may be provided more dignity in termination than in birth.

Women as jury distraction?

Wow....two posts in one night. I'm really wordy today.

This post is about something we talked about a while back, how male attorneys sometimes use women attorneys to their advantage in divorce cases. Now I've heard about that, but I've never realized how prevalant it really is. After we discussed it in class, I just happened to be watching Boston Legal a couple of nights later, and there it was on tv! Alan & Denny were arguing about which woman to put in the hot seat on a case they were working on where the father was trying to get his son into bull fighting. The mother was vigorously fighting against it, obviously questioning the safety of the of the sport. Alan & Denny, being the wonderful attorneys they are, thought that if they had a woman on the side of the father, then the jury would think that if she thought it was ok to defend the father and the safety of the sport, then the sport must really be ok and safe. Are you kidding me???

I was also reading a book at this point about two attorneys who work for the same firm who end up falling in love. The usual woman meets tall, dark, and handsome attorney, but can't date him because he's sort of her boss. They fall in love and live happily ever after. In this book, the male attorney is about to take on the divorce of a major client. The client is the typical old, slimy adulterer who decides to diddle the help of his high-end beach resort. The male attorney decides to ask the female attorney to go along with him to the beach resort to interview the client and decide the course of the case. While there, she learns that the only reason they wanted her on the trial was so that the jury would see that she's defending the husband, so he really can't be an adulterer can he? I mean, as a woman, we all stick together right and if he's cheating on his wife, we certainly couldn't defend him. Right?

I really hope that this doesn't really happen that often. It makes me feel cheap and that the only reason I was put on the case is because I'm a woman, and the jury looks to women for answers to their problems. It's almost as if we're puppets or pawns doing as we're told to distract the jury from the real issues at hand. And what's sad is that in both of these instances, the woman sits second chair to the lead male attorney. Are we really still viewed as inferior to our male counterparts? I really hope not. I would like to think that in the legal profession we are viewed as equals. We're just as competent as our male colleagues. We're just as capable of winning a major case, right? I hope that's how they see us as females!

Polygamy: A Man's World?

Yay, this is my first post, and we only have one week left of school! Yeah, I'm a little behind.

While sitting here watching the news this last week, I've been especially interested in the polygamist community in south Texas. This afternoon, I had a discussion with Dean Turner about it and a male student. I then came home, got on the internet, and decided to look a little further into the situation.

My first thought is how horrible this life must have been for these children and their mothers. My second thought is why are the polygamists ALWAYS men?!?!? Where is the woman who has 50 husbands? And here I thought that our society had come a long way since the 70's bra burning. Boy, was I wrong. In the last 15 years, we have busted TWO, count them, TWO polygamist colonies in Texas! TEXAS!! We live in one of the most conservative states in the U.S. and we've had TWO?!?!?

It really bothers me that both of these colonies are men with numerous wives. This really sets us back as a gender, after those before us have worked so hard to get us where we are today. These women are seen as objects, those who bear children, stay home, and clean house.

And to make matters worse, the women and children and the ones who are removed from the compound. Why do the women have to leave and be put in dirty, run-down shelters? Why can't the men be removed and locked up? Aren't the women and children the innocent ones? And they're being locked up like convicts?? Now I know that CPS is just doing their job in doing what's best for the children. But for these children, are removing their mothers, their only link to their normal life, in their best interest? Imagine you were raised in this community, with no tv, no link to the outside world, and all of a sudden you're thrown into a shelter with people you don't know and completely outside of your comfort level.

Dean Turner has said that they're requesting attorneys from around the state to come down and represent these children as attorneys ad litem. And the main question is, why should we work for free when the community is still making money? Apparently they have a government contract making some kind of parts for something or other. So the men just get this money, even though they're in jail, and the kids are thrown in a shelter??? How is this right? Take that money and help pay for the best attorneys for these children. Putting them in a foster home is not the answer, and taking them from the only mother they know is not the answer either. These women have done nothing wrong. Granted, polygamy is illegal, and I'm sure these women know that, but I just wonder how hard it is for them to leave, to get out, and escape the hold of their husbands. So we send them back to their community with their husbands and without their children and expect everything to be hunky dory.

I think we need to try a little harder as a society to help this injustice. So be looking for an email and/or poster from Dean Turner. She's hoping to have students help out with the attorneys who are the attorneys ad litem for these children. I know this is really more about the children, but the women are involved as well. Let's help these women overcome this barrier of gender bias in their community.

Women and Men are not equal

When I was 15, the owner of the restaurant where I worked as a hostess would sit beside me and place his hand high on my thigh. A waitress in the restaurant approached me in my first or second week and warned me to watch out for him.

When I was 16, a male teacher at my highschool told me, while alone in his office, that he would date me if he were my age.

In undergrad I worked retail at an outdoor sporting goods store that required lots of employee/customer interaction. While working there I had to file police reports on two customer-turned-stalkers. One had tracked down my personal phone number and left agressive messages on my machine when I didn't reply. The other was found hiding behind a structure in the store watching me, and later jerked-off onto the driver's door of my car.

In my first legal internship, my supervising attorney asked a fellow intern if he was sleeping with me. When he replied that he wasn't, the attorney went on to explain what he would do if he were to sleep with me. He later told me that he would sleep with me. As if to make his comment more reasonable, he quickly added, "not because of how you look, but because of how you act."

In 2006, just a month after moving to Fort Worth, my upstairs neighbor broke into my apartment while my roommate (a female) and I were home. We later discovered that he had a key and had broken in and taken 'tokens' before.

Though sort of shocking when compiled this way, I don't consider my experiences to be much different then the average female. Stories such as these are so commonplace that they cease cause to be recounted. I'm sure that many women, while reading the above stories, are quick to think, "So what, ho-hum."

Formal equality mandates that women be treated equally to men. It argues that men and women are equal and therefore should be treated equally. Once applied, the standard to which men and women are to be equally held is the current male-centered standard. There is not a new standard that takes into account the addition of women to those being compared.

Women and men are not the same. As Dana mentioned in her blog concerning how she planned to raise a son versus a daughter, we are not raised in the same context, our experiences are not the same. While the above stories may be those of any young female, I doubt many young men share similar encounters.

The dissimilarities between men and women can be easily demonstrated by looking at women's versus men's exposure to sports:

My dad is an avid runner. At 54 he completed his second 50 mile race. He spends an enormous amount of time running. I started running with my dad when I was 14. Though I've never dedicated the time that he has, I have trained for, and completed lengthy races. In the course of training, I'm often faced with a contradiction from my dad--he encourages me to get in a certain number of miles each week, yet when I call him to let him know about a long run I've finished, he's quick to first ask me where I am and if it's dark out. While he trains on trails, pavement and treadmills at all hours of the morning, day and evening, he expects me to get in the same miles during the middle of the day alone. Our opporunities are not the same.

Instead of running, my addiction is road cycling. In 2003 I rode a bicycle across the United States--From Washington state to Maine. The number 2 question I'm always asked concerning the trip is "Weren't you afraid?" (The number 1 question is "How long did it take you?") Fear in this question is not in the context of falls, road rash, mountain descents...but in the context of men lurking in campsites, gas stations and youth hostels. The guy I completed the trip with is not asked these questions. He's applauded for his effort while I'm often questioned for putting myself at such a risk.

Our opportunities are not the same. Our experiences are not the same. And therefore our mindsets and reactions are not the same. We are--simply--not the same and pretending that we are does not achieve equality. Forcing women into the male-mold is not progress and should not appease us. I am not, and never will be, a reasonable man.

Scandalous

What makes a sex tape a scandal for her and a pat on the back for him?

A friend of mine recently broke up with her boyfriend.  In our discussions, talk turned to sex tapes and how they can be seen to ruin or demoralize a girl but the guy who was also participated in the making of such a video sees no repercussions from his involvement.  Inevitably, such tapes are left with guy (his own personal documentation of his foray into pornography) and upon breaking up the girl must then seek to retrieve the tape.  Why does it seem the girl is the only one worried about where it might end up? Does the guy not worry what the girl might do with it?

Also, are sex tape scandals the result of the viewing of the tape by others (the so-called release) or does it only become a scandal when the release is so vehemently protested by the girl.  If that is the case would we also see sex tape scandals if the guy vehemently protested the release. Or would such a scandal exist if the girl complacently stood aside and let such a release take place.  I do not believe the latter would happen.  I think that even if a girl were to not protest such a release it would be viewed as a scandal to her reputation anyways.  While a guy might see a scandal relating to his involvement if he protested the release zealously, it seems that the girl would be scandal ridden just by her involvement regardless of her feelings on it being released.  

So my advice...leave the camcorders at home, ladies.

The Impact of Internet Socializing on Sex/Sexuality

This afternoon I was watching a show about the impact of technology on sex and friendships in today's society. I thought it might provoke interesting discussion for class especially considering one of the upcoming topics is pornography. I preface this entry with a warning that this may be a long one.

The show started with a discussion on how the government's attempts to regulate sexuality have been repeatedly outsmarted by technology. In today's society, lawyers are struggling with how to adapt laws made years ago to the technology of the internet. I had never stopped to ponder how to deal with the internet's impact on the law. Questions such as: who has jurisdiction when a crime occurs on the internet, how should we deal with crimes committed internationally over the internet, what definition of the crime should even apply, are arising on a regular basis.

The next discussion was how teenagers are now outsourcing their social life to software such as myspace and facebook. Our generation is one of the first generations to have to decide between a real friend and a virtual friend while understanding the key differences. The show makes the argument that these social networking sites are changing the definition of a friend into a consumer or content choice. People on these networking sites can select their "friends" based upon the content of their webpages, turning traditional friendship into societal consumption. One college age student said he could understand why people would rather become friends on the internet than in public. It was more comfortable and there was less risk of rejection.

Individuals can now engage in friendships and sexual relationships over the internet without meeting. It makes one wonder whether social skills are going to give way to empty internet relationships if action is not taken to raise awareness. Before the phenomena of webcams people had to meet to engage in a sexual relationship. Now, the scope of what sex is has morphed, with the advent of the internet, into a relationship that can be had in cyberspace. These internet sexual relationships can produce sexual satisfaction with little effort to please a partner. One can focus solely on themselves; and, because many individuals seek instant gratification, this may be appealing to many in today's society.

I was especially troubled by the story of an eighteen year old boy who used his myspace page to turn a profit. This boy filmed himself performing sex acts and charged individuals to view the video clips. The young man got the idea because he had thousands of myspace friends, most of whom were older men. He then realized he could make money off his looks and sexuality. Later, when he wanted to enter a real relationship, he realized the extent of damage he had done by making private sexual acts public.

Older individuals targeting children on social networking sites is an increasing problem. But, one first amendment attorney on the show had a quote I found provocative. This attorney said that many states have criminalized communicating over the internet, in a sexual manner (essentially flirting), with a person believed to be a minor. The attorney said that there is no such thing as the "thought police" in the United States. I find that opinion troubling on many levels, the main one being that the crude things often said in these "chats" are hardly what I would call "essentially flirting."

My final thought is about the constitutional right to privacy. On the internet (apparently anyway-it was news to me) there are voyeuristic websites. Individuals plant cameras in public places to engage in what is known as "upskirting" aka taking pictures up women's clothing and then posting them on the internet. A first amendment attorney commented he would have a serious problem with a law prohibiting all non-consensual filming of people in public because once you set foot in public you lose your right to privacy. Personally, I have a serious problem with someone taking pictures up my skirt and posting them on the internet. Interestingly, this attorney was a man, someone I seriously doubt can identify when it is not his clothing they are attempting to see under. I do hope, however, he has a problem with this type of public filming and this was not they type of non-consensual filming he would have a problem limiting. After all, he didn't want to allow all the filming, he just did not want to prevent all of it either.

Harassment from Security Guards

As we were talking this week about sexual harassment I was reminded of working in the Tarrant County Justice Center. Every morning when I would go to work, the security guards would feel it necessary to make sly comments or hit on me. I do not think I have ever looked forward to being allowed into the "employee only entrance" quite so much. The behavior of the security guards was frustrating but my response was more frustrating.

I was talking about this with a fellow classmate recently. Men may make ridiculous comments; but, sometimes women, like myself, fail to respond. Most of the time when I was entering the Justice Center I would just roll my eyes and chalk the behavior up to "being a man." It is exactly as we discussed in class-when is the appropriate time to take a stand? Because I wrestle with this issue, the end result is I don't say anything. In my opinion, that is the worst path women can take. If we never stand up for ourselves then change will likely never occur.

Alternatively, speaking up when inappropriate comments are made, may result in men perceiving women as irritable or they may say "well, it must just be her time of the month." I think it would require the majority of women to stand up or else men would just assume those who did were irritable or old fashioned. If women stood up in a united manner it would be much more difficult for men to say females are ALL irritable individuals. But, this may be easier said than done because at times one must have a confrontational attitude to achieve a result (and not all women possess this personality trait).

Male Victims of Sexual Harassment

What is it like to be sexually harassed as a man? In order to imagine this do we need to picture the female in the position of power a la Demi Moore in Disclosure or an effeminate male like the two examples we discussed in class? Surely there is no problem of the stereotypical manly-man being harassed by his demure female secretary on near the scope as he is harassing her! The data certainly doesn't suggest so, anyway.

Picture this: An older woman makes a loud remark about her young male boss' physique as he walks by. The other people in the office, male and female, all turn to look at him and laugh. Other females chime in, asking him to show them and make "mmm, mmm" noises. The men laugh louder. The young man simply continues walking to his desk.

Do we expect his reaction to be any different than what we'd expect from a female? Is a woman's body any more off limits from banter than a man's? Do we expect him to be flattered or laugh along with the others? Are we suprised that he would be offended? Humiliated? Wouldn't he feel that his credibility/authority at work had been undermined? He faces the same problem as a woman in the position: if he says anything, he's overly sensitive. If he reports this, then he risks that he will be seen as weak, incapable of garnering respect from his subordinates, and possibly being passed up for a promotion based on those perceptions. If he confronts the group, then they see him as overly sensitive or a spoil-sport, potentially compounding the problem.

If the sexes here were reversed, I suspect that no one would have laughed. If he had made a loud comment and instigated jokes about her breasts, he would be in big trouble and nobody would think twice about her right to report him.

Remember Michael Crichton?

Since we have been talking about sexual harassment I have been reminded of the Michael Crichton novel that came out in the early 90s about the subject. I think it was called "Disclosure." A movie was made out of it starring Michael Douglas and Demi Moore. Back then Michael Crichton's novels were usually thought-provoking - popular but not too trashy. I can remember being particularly galled that he reversed the usual situation....a female supervisor was threatening and harassing a male employee. Was there not a thought-provoking book to write about the more usual scenario? (I can remember thinking.) Of course there are female supervisors who harass male employees - there were then and there are now too. It just makes me want to sigh because it seemed like by declining to write about the usual situation he trivialized what happens to alot of women everyday. The Michael Douglas character saved the day because he accidentally recorded the encounter in question on his cell phone (really really new technology back then). Would the story really have suffered that much if the roles had been reversed and Demi had been the heroine?

Reasoable Man "Re-Convinced?"

I thought our discussion Thursday on sexual harassment was very interesting. The idea in Nonsuboridnation that most standards we have in society are based on maleness and male characteristics has been eye-opening. After class I was thinking more about the question of "reasonable man." I have a male friend who worked with me as a legal intern a while back. Our male superivsing attorney is gay, and it was kind a joke around the interns that he had a crush on this friend of mine. He would call him, text him and ask him to go out to bars with him. We were discussing all of that one day when my friend made a startling revelation. He said he finally understood what it was like to be a woman and be "pursued."

It had never really occurred to me that men do not understand what it is like to be pursued (at least not in the way that women do). If a woman is relentlessly pursued by a male there are often feelings of fear, powerlessness and humiliation. If a man is relentlessly pursued by a female there are often feelings of pride, power and arrogance. Those are very different responses - so I guess the question is, why are the responses different?

There is probably not just one answer, but I think one answer lies in the way men and women interact socially. Often times, men are assumed to be in control of situations even when they are not. Women are assumed to not be in control of situations even when they are. Thus, the feelings of power and powerlessness are dealt accordingly.

My intern friend and I talked further about his feelings. I asked him to clarify just what he meant when he said he now understood what it was like to be pursued like a female. He said he felt powerless, confused about what the appropriate response was, and to a certain level - even victimized. He said he had never had these feelings when he had been pursued by females (even ones he was not at all attracted to). I believe the reason he felt this way was due to the power shift. The person who was pursuing him was an attorney, a boss and an older male. Because of his station, age and sex, he had the power. My friend experienced for the first time what it was like to be in the submissive seat of a social interaction...and it completly changed his perceptions.

All of this causes me to think of the reasonable man standard and how most of the people who set "reasonable" standards are men. My friend would've set the standard one way a year ago. Now he would set the standard at an entirely different place. Have the circumstances changed? No - but the perceptions have.
On a sadder note, when I lamented to this friend about how a male attorney suggested I include a picture on my resume to help me land a job, his response was, "The system isn't perfect, Amy. You have to play the game." I give up.

Mother

I had prepared this post that seemed really thoughtful and intelligent. I did it right before I was going to the ultrasound that would tell me if I was carrying a son or a daughter. Right on the cusp of such important information, I was struck by how many differences I anticipated between the two. You see, if it was to be a daughter my concerns were raising a girl that could excel in a man’s world, who could be confident and strong and with the grace and dignity that makes a woman such a fascinating and wonderful dichotomy. But if I were raising a son, I thought it would be important to stress the ability to be tender and emotionally intelligent. I wanted to raise a son that would be a good husband and father; who could recognize the gift of the circumstances of his birth as a white, upper-middle class, male – the trifecta of important social determiners that are not within our control – and who would appreciate and respect that that kind of social privilege requires of him a certain amount of social responsibility.
We found out at that sonogram that I was having a daughter. Already the light of my world, she was all that mattered. She was the result of years of infertility treatments, All of our hopes and years of dreams. We were beyond ecstatic. Now all of that is moot. All the world has changed. I was unprepared for the terrible third option that lurked like the devil himself mere hours away. We would never get to raise this child. This past Saturday, just three days after that sonogram, my water broke, 4 weeks before my sweet little girl would have lungs that could sustain her. I was in labor for nineteen hours, all the time knowing that my child would never draw breath. It was at unimaginable, crushing grief. We held each other and cried and begged God for a miracle that the doctors told us would never come. My sweet, beautiful girl was born on Sunday, but she died the night before.
Her birth is, at once, the most heartbreaking, devastating hours of my life, and somehow still the most profound, and life changing, and miraculous. I became a mother in those hours. That is arguably the most completely feminine thing in the world. I am still her mother. If I weren’t my heart wouldn’t be breaking like this. I will never be the same. I will never stop missing her – this amazing, tiny little girl who got cheated out of a life and a family where she is so loved and wanted. I will never stop being proud of her - of how she fought to survive for hours even with her little world inside me coming down around her. And I love her without end and without exception. If that is not a mother, I don’t know what is.

finally. a post.

i have never seen a speaker captivate an audience at our school like the one i saw yesterday. every laptop was closed & every pair of eyes was glued to the woman at the front of the class. in fact, i had even planned on reading for class during the presentation, but was sucked in. the presentation was about women in litigation. the speaker made two very interesting points (and i hope i don't butcher this explanation too badly...)

first, that women are confined to this box. it is a box that stands for how we should act, what we should look like, sociological norms that we should conform to, etc. BUT when a woman exhibits behaviors outside of this box, she is labeled one of four things: bitch, tease, whiner, or hysterical female. think about this. have you ever been labeled one of these things for acting outside of the "box?" for example, the speaker mentioned that some students have placed her in one of those categories as a professor. HOWEVER, while some students may have assigned this "label," i think it is their way of reacting to an unconventional woman professor. for some reason, she does not fit in some students' "boxes" so she is unfairly labeled this way (even though she is one of the best professors here). the point really hit home in the presentation when the speaker asked all of us as women to never assign these labels to each other. this can absolutely be applied to women in law-- instead of trying to compete w/ one another, we need to be helping each other.

the second point was about emotion. i honestly wish i could remember more so i could explain it better, but i can't so i'll go on...

another thing i just remembered is what the speaker mentioned about younger women--that they are more likely to say they haven't been victim to sex discrimination. i'm not sure i quite agree w/ this statement as a young woman, but maybe that's because i have more of a background with these types of issues. or perhaps younger women are more naive as to the harsh sexist realities of the world today. i think professor seymore made an excellent point when she asked us to think about the amount of respect given to young male professors vs. young female professors. my point is, maybe there isn't as much outward blatant sexism today, but it still exists.

final point: yesterday's women in litigation presentation was really great. i hope it opened some minds & motivated others to make changes.

that's all for now.

No Luck Improving Men's Flag Football

For two or three years, I have been my husband's personal cheerleading squad for his flag football team. Season after season I watch from the sidelines and they lose more than they win. A few teams have girls on their teams, one of which actually beat my husband's team. I asked my husband last weekend, why don't they add me to their team as a rusher to quickly get in and pull flags? His response was that he would have two deficits to overcome at that point instead of one--a female and young players that he has to deal with. He went on to say that it would be a death sentence for their team (already losers!!!). He added that he would have to talk to me differently (not as rough and direct), it wasn't as easy as it looked, emotion would cause the guys to be protective without their head in the game-in case I got touched or talked to inappropriately. Also, he referred to my sub-par athletic ability (o.k., I did excel in academics in school and never played sports before-so what, it can't be that hard to run towards a particular person right?).

I was not totally shocked that he assumed I would not be able to handle 'sports/guy sports' pressure. He immediately went into the 'protective' mode like I would necessarily need it. I was thinking about the cases we discussed and how they fit in here. There are girls flag football teams, guy flag football teams and co-ed teams. I do have options if I really choose to play. However, guys look for skill and ability first, rather than strategy. I, being of the more strategic mindset, made a great suggestion after seeing one of their major flaws-pulling flags quickly, and was shot down. I witnessed this technique from the co-ed team that beat them-they put their girls in on defense, to rush in quickly and pull the flags.

Ultimately, my husband did invite me to their practice if I was serious. So, be on the lookout for future posts to see if I've infiltrated the guy's flag football team!

Sex-Segregation in Middle School, Protectionist or Practical?

I've been thinking a lot over the past few days about our discussions of sex segregation in schools. Recently, my 14-year-old niece has been having problems at school with different boys teasing her and touching her. Her complaints have been mostly ignored by many of her teachers, who tell her to stop talking to so many different boys or to just stay away from them. However, they refuse to change her seating assignments and continue to assign group projects where she has to regularly work with the same boys. So she asked me the other day what she was supposed to do. Other than getting really frustrated by the attitudes of her teachers, I really had no good answers for her other than to talk to her parents to see if they can figure out a better solution with the school.

To me, she would benefit from a sex segregated school, and I wonder how many other teenage girls go through the same things and would benefit from a sex segregated solution. Apparently, a school in Georgia was thinking the same thing this week. I came across this story on MSNBC.com.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23338384/

What if sex segregation would make the girls feel safer as my niece implied? Yes, we don't want to be protectionist when it's not necessary, but what happens when a school refuses to protect individual students because there is no good way to keep them away from the other sex?

No Monetary Value for Homemakers!!!!

My husband and I were watching 'Everybody Loves Raymond' and it was quite enlightening. This episode touched on many of the classes' discussions. First, Raymond decided to invest in a friend's business venture before discussing it with his wife. He had the friend to come over and give a presentation to get Debra on board-well she didn't. But guess what? Raymond had already fronted the friend $1000, before he asked him to give the presentation-and couldn't get it back because the friend had spent all of the money on his preparation for the presentation. Go figure!!! While it appeared that Raymond and Debra were equally considering whether to use their pool of resources for this business venture, Raymond had already invested.

The episode continues with Raymond trying to slip in his misfortune on losing their $1000 and pre-emptively fronting his friend the money by bringing up a time when Debra gave a homeless man a $5 bill when she didn't have change-and she did not worry about it because the guy obviously needed it more than she did. During the discussion following Raymond's confession and their differing opinions about having to discuss how to allocate finances, Raymond says the unthinkable-if he wants to invest in his friend's business he doesn't have to discuss it because it is his money!!! He made the money!!!

The next day, after Debra slept downstairs, she had composed a list of expenses for Raymond, charging him for full time child care, full time chef, housekeeping, etc.-demanding payment for the things she does daily that do not usually translate into monetary value. I was internally cheering, because I knew what she was talking about and also flashed to class discussions. Women handle millions of tasks daily whether they choose to stay at home or circumstances place them on the homefront. The family would not function as smoothly, if she did not carry out all that she does in a day. However, society and individuals regularly overlook this and grant no real value-monetary or otherwise. While women are already personally dealing with the issue of financial dependence on another if she is a homemaker, it digs the knife in that much deeper when the man, who has decided to be her husband, supposed 'family provider', lover, etc., has the audacity to say out loud (even if thinking it) that "I make the money and its mine to decide how to spend it". If married and a unit, then discussion of how the family's resources are allocated should take place-regardless of how the pool got there.

Which brings me to another point in the show. While Debra is discussing with Raymond his actions, it comes out that she has on occassion handled funds without discussing it with Raymond. She borrowed money to handle some household needs and replaced it without mentioning it. So, they decide to discuss from this point on and agree to let this instance go and call it even. The show ends with Raymond saying, I work for her don't I? His brother answers in the affirmative.

Both sides should discuss their plans for finances from the family's resources. This presents questions of equality in the realm of expectations in a marriage, role designations, etc. My husband and I discussed these things following the show, and though we disagree on many points-he makes some valid arguments. Is it equal for men's finances to automatically be considered 'the family's resources' without discussion and women have a say in how allocation works, but then when women get money it is not understood that it will primarily be 'the family's resources'-there is little or no discussion on how to allocate and even with opposition-the decision is usually singularly made and carried out by the woman? Well, my response included talk of role designations and the ideal situation. When men decide to be husbands/fathers, it comes with certain responsibilities-including providing for the 'family'. If women are working, their income should be included in the 'family's resources' to take care of necessities first, but if they are not working and unpaid-their pool of resources is still the 'family's resources'-even if she has not financially contributed to that pool.

I believe that it is fair for both sides to openly discuss and contribute; however, I know that realistically some discussions will come after the act is already done. I know this has been a mouthful, but I was thrilled to have something relevant to the class to share and discuss at home too.

Stop and Frisk

I was riding out with my fiance on Saturday. He is a police officer and I thought the ride along could prove entertaining. I originally was watching how other officers profiled cars and people to decide who to stop. Then something else caught my attention. Adrian stopped a car and was going to search the car. His backup arrived and pulled the female passenger out to be sure she had no weapons. He had to bring the female to the front of the car, face her towards the in car camera, and could only search her with the back of his hand. When the stop was complete I asked whether females searching males had to follow this same procedure and the answer was no. Interesting. I find it hard to believe that no male would find it uncomfortable to have a female performing an intrusive search. I believe it would be fair to extend this same courtesy to males being searched by females. Another concern is that the policy was enacted because there is a risk of sexual assault claims and the department does not want to give the appearance of impropriety. It is as though we have to protect females from the cops who may violate their rights. Is there absolutely no risk that a female would sexually assault a man if a search is performed off camera?

Policies like these can prove disturbing. On one level it is comforting to know that these policies are being enacted due to past events and officers taking advantage of their authority. But, on another level it reinforces the protectionist attitude. What harm would result from simply having such a rule but applying in to both sexes? I understand a department's desire to lower chances of lawsuit as much as possible; but, a man could just as easily sue for sexual assault in a similar situation. Or could he? A man could be made fun of if he brought such a lawsuit. After all, what "real man" would mind being felt up by a woman? We could prevent men from feeling such pressure if we applied the rule universally. However, it does not appear that society feels that men need such rules.

On a side note, I was entertained when a man asked if I had been arrested for the same thing as him-family violence. I wanted to say "Of course, I am just a special prisoner, that is why they put me in the front seat." I refrained and replied with the standard "No, I am not under arrest."

Tootsie

I took a TV break from researching a paper topic for another class, and, of course, found something fun on TV to distract me for longer than the planned 1/2 hour... maybe it's indicative of poor discipline or maybe (and hopefully because it sounds better) I really like my Women and Law class! Tootsie is on TCM! What a classic! I haven't watched this in years, but I was suprised and delighted to find references to class discussions in just the first 15 minutes of my viewing.

For anyone who hasn't seen the movie (I highly recommend it), Dustin Hoffman plays an out-of-work, desperate actor who dresses as a woman to land a part on a soap opera. He learns of the part through a girl friend who was denied the part for looking too feminine. He was nearly denied the part on the same basis (oh, the irony!) He procures a reading for himself by bringing out decidedly male manners during a speech where he asks whether a woman in power (referencing the acting role) must be a masculine woman. In other parts of the film, he finds even getting a taxi dressed as a woman is easier when he uses his male shout and male physicallity to stand up for "herself."

He is trying to play a woman, but finds that his natural maleness is an advantage in that role on and off the set. "Dorothy" becomes popular and he must carry out her portrayal more and more off-set, convincing press and colleagues alike that Dorothy is real. It is interesting to see how people react to his male characteristics versus the female characteristics in the woman costume and what advantages/disadvantages come from the different characteristics. He sympathizes (even empathizes?) with women when he begins to understand the power disparity between the sexes and how the empowered sex treats the other (take sexual harassment, for example. The "Tootsie" title is a reference to the cute nickname Dorothy's boss gives her.) After gaining celebrity, Dorothy becomes a symbol of female power looked up to by real women, but of course Dorothy is really a man. With ego brimming, Dorothy's male alter-ego seeks PR opportunities where "she" can inspire women to stand up for themselves, but he is reminded by a knowing friend that he doesn't know anything about what it is like to be a woman... he is, after all, a man.

Female Ref Barred from Calling Game

http://sports.aol.com/story/_a/female-ref-barred-from-calling-game/20080214091409990001

I don't know if anyone else saw this, but I thought it was blog-worthy. The ref couldn't be in this game because of the academy's religious beliefs that a woman should not be in a place of authority over boys. Wow. I know this is a Catholic school and is quite different from a public institution, but wow. This is discrimination, without a doubt, but my confusion is from the fact that a religious school is behind the activity. The state really isn't involved at all. But, this is still so wrong! I guess I could go through the full analysis, but this is so blatantly unjust! I know that everyone has the freedom of religious beliefs, but there are other schools involved in these games--schools that do not ascribe to the same beliefs.

Ramblings of a Sickie

For the past several days, I have been laid up in bed stricken with that awful flu bug.  My major accomplishments have been turning the TV on and off.  With a 100 degree fever and blankets piled so high I could barely see the TV over them, I managed to come to the realization that Women & the Law has ruined the simplicity of television for me.  The other night I was laying in bed listening to an episode of MASH (that's right I didn't even bother trying to keep my head up to see the actual show), and all I could think of was, my gosh I cannot believe the gender roles they are portraying here.  Its really amusing because in this episode the lead woman's paramour wanted her to where pretty dresses and make his food for him and she fought back against this notion of a woman's duties.  I originally thought, hey that's cool this show was progressive in trying to shatter traditional notions of gender.  But, I then proceeded to think back about other episodes and came to realize what a gendered nightmare this show actually is.  The strong female lead who has attained the rank of major is nicknamed Hotlips, shows masculine characteristics as we might say in class, and is hyper sexual.  All, other women on the show are basically sex toys.  Not exactly my ideal portrayal of women. So now, even while delirious with fever, I cannot seem to watch a simple comedy TV show for pleasure. No, I must pick apart every little aspect of those 22 minutes.  So I ask you, does anyone remember when TV was just something fun to watch before law school corrupted your viewing habits? 

GREAT POSTS!

Such GREAT posts, everyone! Keep up the good work!

Sorry I had to cancel class today -- I've got the virus Maya had last week. Sigh. I can't talk, but I can still type. But who knows if I can make sense with a fever of 102!

Two things to think about while we don't have class:

1. A reporter at NBC has been suspended because he said that the Clintons were "pimping out" Chelsea by having her call superdelegates to campaign for Hillary. Do you think a reporter would have said the same if Mitt Romney's sons were making calls for their dad?

2. Remember the attitude test I mentioned that revealed my bias toward the elderly? If you're interested in checking out your attitudes, click here!

What would Saint Valentine think?

Since Valentine's day is getting closer, I have noticed that there are more sexist commercials on television. The commercials are all about buying women flowers and diamonds and big teddy bears. So if men are being encouraged to be generous, why am I so offended?
I thought that Valentine's day was about celebrating love. Love that is equally shared between men and women, and even parents and children, and between friends. So why is the media focused in on getting "your girl" exactly what she wants? What she wants of course is expensive, flashy, and material. Women never want to spend quality time, uninterrupted with their loved one's according to the media (except for maybe sex--as the KY commercial tells us).
Why aren't there commercials about what to get men for Valentine's day? I have yet to see one, but I'm sure there is at least one.
This morning I noticed a sexist Valentine's day event in the wierdest place, my son's cartoon, The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. I only saw the last 10 minutes, but that was enough for me to be shocked. Mickey had spent the whole show making a Valentine's day present for Minnie. (no problem yet) Then at the end Mickey gives his present to Minnie, with Donald and Daisy right there. Daisy turns to Donald and asks him if he forgot anything, Donald says no (but he has no present for Daisy). So Daisy throws a hissy fit, and tells Donald that he is mean or something to that effect. (this is a little offensive, that Daisy needs a present to not throw a hissy fit) What really got me was when Mickey used his last Mousekatool to make Daisy a bow for her hair that Donald could give her. Donald gives her the gift and she calms down and is all happy again. And the icing on the cake is at the very end when Mickey says that he made the bow and not Donald. Daisy "goes off" about how Donald didn't make it, and then says "but, its OK, I love my bow". This to me stereotyped women as materialistic, who need men to give them presents to be happy. And the worst part of the whole event was that my first thought after being shocked was "at least I don't have a daughter learning this lesson." I'm kicking myself, that I thought it was OK for my son to learn this.

"Because you're not THAT GUY"

Okay this commercial bugs me because the guy is "going beyond the call of duty." With this commercial, yes, amusing, he groomed the dog and even put a bow on it--not common for men to do. But eww! I've watched this a few times, and I've come to this conclusion: The "regular guy" that goes to Helzberg instead, is so not appealing...the "regular guy" is lazy! And diamonds are lovely, but I would take domestic labor any day. This commercial says to me: oh she'll love the necklace, you don't have to actually do something that requires over 30 minutes of effort.

Maybe a car, maybe if this was a Lexus bow commercial (you know, the big surprise outside commercials), maybe then I would not be so repulsed. Because that spouse went through at least 3 hours of car bargaining, and the result was a finely tuned automobile. (Joking!)

But in all seriousness, I hate the preconceived duties that men and women have. These sentiments should be changing. It should be an entirely reasonable concept that a male spouse would wash a family pet!

How Efficient Would You Be?

As I watched the Super Tuesday primary returns the other night, I came across this on the internet, and upon a bit of investigation, found that it was an actual article. It was kind of surreal to be reading it while listening to pundits on all the cable news networks discuss Hillary Clinton as our potential next President. Since it coincides with some of our discussions on employment discrimination and stereotypes, I thought I would post it here.

An excerpt written by L.H. Sanders from the July 1943 issue of Mass Transportation magazine… This was written for male supervisors of women in the work force during World War II.

“Eleven Tips on Getting More Efficiency Out of Women Employees: There's no longer any question whether transit companies should hire women for jobs formerly held by men. The draft and manpower shortage has settled that point. The important things now are to select the most efficient women available and how to use them to the best advantage.

Here are eleven helpful tips on the subject from Western Properties:

1. Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters, they're less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn't be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.

2. When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy. It's always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.

3. General experience indicates that "husky" girls - those who are just a little on the heavy side - are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

4. Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job.

5. Stress at the outset the importance of time the fact that a minute or two lost here and there makes serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.

6. Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they'll keep busy without bothering the management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous properties say that women make excellent workers when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they lack initiative in finding work themselves.

7. Whenever possible, let the inside employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.

8. Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.

9. Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can't shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman - it breaks her spirit and cuts off her efficiency.

10. Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women. Even though a girl's husband or father may swear vociferously, she'll grow to dislike a place of business where she hears too much of this.

11. Get enough size variety in operator's uniforms so that each girl can have a proper fit. This point can't be stressed too much in keeping women happy.”

Beautiful, But at What Cost?

During lunch today I was watching a show on plastic surgery addicts. The first thing I noticed was that every person interviewed was a woman. I know there are men that become obsessed with plastic surgery, it is not solely women consumers. The second thing that caught my attention was the lengths these women would go to in order to achieve "perfection." The choices of one women in particular were particularly appalling. In order to finance her $55,000 of elective surgery she was selling the beautiful home that her husband adored. Her son also loved their home, he and his dad hiked through the creek and went fishing on a regular basis. Was sacrificing something so cherished by her family worth liposuction and a breast augmentation? I cannot imagine being self absorbed enough to engage in such actions. Originally I was mad that she was being ridiculous and then I started to look at the bigger picture. Why is it that women feel they have to be beautiful to be accepted? Women should be valued for more than their physical attractiveness, but society has projected the image you are less valuable if you are an unattractive woman.

When was it that Americans became obsessed with the easy way to achieve their goals? The first step should be hard work and dedication. If a person desires the perfect body, working out and eating healthy should be the first step, not elective surgery.

Because elective surgery has now become an option, the standards for beauty have become almost unattainable. Enough is enough. It should not surprise anybody that girls (and boys) struggle with self image. We are attempting to raise children in a society obsessed with physical perfection and teaching children that other attributes are less importance than physical appearance. I wish optional plastic surgery was not an option. Americans should learn to accept themselves as God created them. For all the flaws I may have, this is the body that God gave me and I am going to love it, flaws included.

I also became irritated with myself while watching this show. Immediately I thought "go figure, women obsessed over their looks." My reaction frustrated me and made me realize how easily I can stereotype my own class. It also made me realize that it is often other women that are the most critical of women in general. It is possible that if women worked together, and stopped being their own worst enemy, we could start to make a difference in the societal stereotypes. But, at the same time, I find the problems numerous and the optional solutions frustrating.

It's always the television's fault

My first favorite thing about Netflix is that they have effectively introduced the term ‘queue’ into daily US lingo. My second favorite thing is that you can get an amazing variety of television shows neatly compiled and commercial-free delivered to your mailbox. I have lived without a television for a while and Netflix has provided me with the ability to decipher pre-class banter. My fiancé and I just finished our marathon viewing of HBO’s Six Feet Under and have moved on to the same network’s series, The Wire.

Five episodes in and I’m hooked. The show centers around a Baltimore police task force assigned to infiltrate a large drug operation that has claimed the lives of many Marylanders, including one State’s witness. Unlike many television crime dramas, this one doesn’t take sides or otherwise valorize law enforcement. The story-line flip-flops between various perspectives: cop, detective, drug addict, informant, district attorney, judge, public defender, prostitute—none of whose lives is sugar-coated. I was first drawn by the mystery, then by the politics but ultimately hooked by the honesty.

Perhaps I’m over-sensitized because of my enrollment in Seymore’s Women and the Law, but my infatuation with the show is being challenged by my inability to stop analyzing women’s portrayal in everything I encounter. While women are distinctly absent from much of the cast, the roles they occupy are oozing with themes of inferiority and otherness.

Time for a disclaimer: I have only seen the first 5 episodes of The Wire. Four more seasons follow, but this analysis is based on those first 5 episodes.

The character of Kima is the largest female role. She is a narcotics detective assigned to the task force. While she is a lead detective, she is essentially one step above the lowest rank with several layers of males out-ranking her. Two of the central themes involving Kima are her lesbian lifestyle and her girlfriend’s worry over her safety. In effect, the sole female cop emulates a male identity.

The character of Rhonda Pearlman is the other regular female presence. She is an assistant state’s attorney who acts as liaison between the task force and the courts. Rhonda’s lack of character is notable. Also notable is her infatuation with lead character Detective McNulty whose booty-calls keep her favors coming to the task-force.

Other female characters play very minor roles. McNulty’s ex-wife is portrayed only in reference to his child custody dilemmas. Although McNulty is an alcoholic and endangers his children several times by mixing their visits with his work, his wife is portrayed as interfering with his fathering by continually nagging and criticizing him.

The women associated with the drug operation are primarily prostitutes and girlfriends. They are portrayed as weak-links who are targeted by the cops for their propensity to snitch. The men are largely unfaithful and otherwise disrespectful to the women. In one episode, a prostitute is sexually assaulted and dies from asphyxiation after she is abandoned in a drunken state warranting little to no reaction of the men who are present.
Is it an interest in fostering a stereotypical female presence that a show touted for its truthful characters portrays women as inferior and naive? Or are the women in The Wire a result of the writer’s effort to nail the female role? My unfortunate realization is that it likely the latter. And even more unfortunate is that even though I endorse that portrayal by watching the show, I don’t plan on rearranging my Netflix queue.

Serenity and Cool Confidence

As I read all of the posts and materials for class, I become more informed and sensitive to daily discriminations that I overlooked/suppressed before. The section we just discussed about appearance standards was truly enlightening. When I am a licensed attorney and applying for employment/partnership, will I make the cut with my level of femininity and calm assertiveness? I am confident that I have all the tools necessary for success and am proud that the list of my qualifications exceeds the superficial realm of outward niceties.

I am not naive about the stereotypes that shape corporate america, and I am not deterred by the oppressive history and current realities before me. I am armed with invaluable knowledge, experience and strength. My inward peace and quiet assurance is found in God!!!! I am able to function productively in this world with an omniscient, infallible guide. (nudge, nudge-cue in the soothing, motivational music.)

Just to share my personal testimony of triumph: I began law school as an evening student in New Orleans in 2003-after being denied entry twice from another school. I had only been married 3 months, when in October I found out I was pregnant. I gave birth to my beautiful daughter in June 2004. By about Jan./Feb 2005, I found out that I was pregnant again. In August 2005 we experienced Hurricane Katrina and had to relocate. I visited SMU for a year as a transfer student and was denied admission when I applied to become a regular full-time student. I had my son in Nov. 2005 and applied to come to TWU the following semester. I will be graduating in May and my family will be there to share in this accomplishment. I was determined to finish my lifelong career choice of becoming a Lawyer. I also wanted a husband and at least two kids-and I have been blessed to pull that off too. Has it been easy-without challenges and doors closed?? Not at all-but the experience makes the journey that much more meaningful. As I wake up daily and get two little people ready for school before I get myself ready for school, I can smile and be proud of the life that I am living. When I am not at school, I am probably at church for rehearsal, Bible study or service. I sing and play the drums and my husband plays the organ/keyboard and is a minister. My children aspire to be great church leaders/participants and more. I am proud of my little family.

Well, I shared all of that to hopefully inspire and encourage some of the women that I know. As we endeavor to finish this class, semester and law school, know that you can do it. There were times when outer influences piled up and gave me a big 'QUIT' boost-but thank God I have internal peace, serenity and confidence that "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" Philippians 4:13. Also, I have a very supportive family pulling for me to make it. I am enjoying this class and learning different perspectives within the inescapable world of discrimination. I made the choice to have a family, finish school and progress in my ministries-and I pleased with the results thus far. Just know that while I am very quiet and often sleepy, I am at peace, I am confident, I am strong, I am more than a conqueror.

Walk a Mile in Women's Shoes

I recently watched a television program on gender-reassignment surgery. The program centered around several men who were undergoing surgery to become women. Although it wasn't the focus of the program, I found insight into their experiences in the world...first as men, then as women.
One story I found particularly relevant to our discussion of gender and law was from a man named Nick. He was a handsome man before he began taking female hormones - he then became a beautiful woman as well! Nick ended up changing his name to Christine. Before her reassignment surgery, she was a corporate attorney in a very successful law firm up north. Nick was married and had two young children. At some point, he decided to be his authentic self all the time and began making plans to become a woman. Although his wife supported his decision, they eventually divorced. Nick continued working at the law firm until he began taking female hormones. He then made a move to California to begin his life anew as Christine.
Christine was undoubtedly a tall female - but she didn't look as though she used to be a man. If I had seen Christine on the street I never would have guessed that she had been born male. Christine soon began to look for a job as an attorney doing the same type of work she had been doing in her previous job. One thing she was not prepared for was how the corporate world treats women.
Christine stated that even those who did not know she had previously been a man would attempt to talk her out of applying for a job at their firm, or simply tell her they were not interested. This was surprising because she told them of her extensive previous experience in the field. It was her opinion that these jobs were being refused to her because she was a woman. No law firm wanted to hire a woman - even though they did not come right out and say so.
The one statement that struck me most of all was made at the end of her story. Christine stated, "I had the world at my fingertips when I was a white male. Now that I am a woman simply proving my basic competency is a daily battle."
I hope that Christine will use her experience to educate others on the discrimination that still takes place against women (in the corporate world, especially). Christine ended up taking an entry level government job - for which she said she was overqualified.
I found great comfort in her story. I wish all men would walk a mile in women's shoes...though I fear most of them would break their ankles!

Women & the Right to Vote

I would have thought this was a dead issue everywhere except theocratic countries in the Middle East until I ran across this story about Mexico. It seems that the law passed 6 years ago that allowed indiginous people to preserve their traditional forms of government also preserved policies that barred women from voting.

Women CAN Have It All: A Meteorologist's Story

Today Prof. Seymore mentioned that one of her daughters dreams of being a meteorologist. It reminded me of a newspaper article that my mother recently sent me (my mother is a daily newspaper reader and often clips out stories that she thinks I'd like to read.) The title of this one is "KESQ Forecster finds life in LQ sunny and warm." It is about a woman who seemingly has it all, which ties into a class discussion we had last week about women bringing home the bacon and frying it, too. It appears that this is an example of a woman who truely does that. Ginger Jeffries is a television meteorologist in La Quinta, CA. She is 35 years old and has been working as a meteorologist on the local news for at least 7 years (exact time not specified.) She has two children, ages 5 and 7, whom she home schools. She does "regular" mom stuff like taking her kids to the park and to see Hannah Montana. She is also active in her church and community. On top of all this, she plans to earn a Ph.D in atmospheric science.

I often wonder whether we have to choose between being "Super Mom" and having a successful, serious career (judging "successful, serious" with the same measuring stick men use. I know, law students the world 'round recite, "What measuring stick? Define the standard." Ney. Stop being so analytical.) The point is, having it all is possible.

I hope this story makes us all feel a little "sunny and warm." After all the discussion and reading about clashes between women and the law/society, this story presents a positive model and hopefully will inspire optimism in us all.

Independent women

Recently my husband and I watched the mini-series "Comanche moon." I was about frontier Texas. One thing that really got me thinking about our class during this show was when a shop girl named Clara was being courted. I thought she was cute and kinda spunky, but the guy who wanted to marry her got irritated with her. She had been giving him a hard time about if she would marry and who she would marry, and he said to her "You're so d***ed independent." And it was a bad thing for her to be independent. I was so shocked when that guy said it that I was literally sitting with my mouth hanging open.
I got to thinking about the social expectations of women. And one thing that really struck me is that women still aren't supposed to be independent. Although, I think it is not a blunt or blatant than it was in the mini-series. Women are expected to be in relationships, or at least pursuing a relationship. Some of the first questions that anyone, even other women, as a woman is Are you married? engaged? have a boyfriend?
I have noticed also that women who choose to be single for any amount of time, short or long, are viewed as if something is wrong. I am even guilty of this. In college, I had a friend who never had a boyfriend or even dated while we were at school. All of her friends, including me, were constantly trying to set her up with someone. We even talked about how it was weird for her not to want to be in a relationship. I feel guilty about it now, because I understand that priorities like school and even developing one's self-actualization can be much more important than a cheap card on Valentine's day.
In contrast to this, I noticed that men who are independent in this sense are not scrutinized. Men in college who had no desire to be in a relationship didn't get any sideways glances. They were almost congratulated for never being "tied down."
So why is it that over a hundred years later a woman's top priority should be getting married?

Appearance and the restaurant industry

Okay, hopefully this isn't the worst first blog post in history. It's long, I apologize in advance!
I have been looking over the materials about discrimination based on appearance. The first thought that came to my mind was my first job. Let us briefly travel back through time: I applied at a Chili's that was going to open in my neighborhood in Arizona; I wore a respectable summer dress and made sure I looked extra tan, because this is what I valued at age 15. I ended up getting the job, even though I was painfully shy and applying for a hostess position--which required quite a bit of speaking! When we had our intensive grand opening training session, I looked at the other 8 hostesses as we were all lined up (and ogled), and they looked exactly like me. I'm kind of scrawny and these other hostesses were definitely in my boxing weight class. Even the one male host was noticeably slender.
Upon finding my interview polaroid, I later asked one of my female bosses why I ended up getting picked. She said basically because she thought I looked cute. Period, the end.

So I realize that Chili's is not exactly a beacon establishment, it's not even at the airline level of prestige, but this scenario is still kind of sad, considering how many of these restaurants dot our landscape. But back to my memory tangent: after about six months, a newly hired host was fired for "getting in the way," and he happened to be much larger than much of the employees. But this theme didn't go across the board: the male bartenders were not slim or toned, even in the vaguest sense, and they were "front of the house" employees. The management would always reiterate that we wanted the restaurant to attract people--but we were in mall-land, so was this really going to be a difficult endeavor? If each employee didn't fit the mold, would we be known as the "average Chili's," the one that nobody goes to because there is a hotter one in the next town? Did an employee's expanded waistline affect purchases of the trademark quesadillas? Considering our customer base of 30-something parents with children and the elderly clientele from the retirement communities, the answer seemed to be "not in the slightest."

So this is a meandering post, but I guess my question starts with: should these restaurants have this sort of license? Are they allowed a secret scorecard of attractiveness from 1-10? Is it justifiable in food service industries? Does the thought of working at a chain restaurant nauseate anyone else? I have many questions, actually.

Class Blog

This blog is a "team blog." The posters are all enrolled in my Women & the Law course at Texas Wesleyan Law School. We're going to use this blog to share our thoughts and insights on issues relevent to women & law.

Check back as the blog develops. Please note that each blog post expresses the thoughts of the individual author, and other team members may or may not agree. Nothing here carries the approval or endorsement of Texas Wesleyan University Law School. (Gotta do the CYA thing!)